composing 'technique'

I'm having thoughts - (post doing some composing coaching) - about composing technique. Keeping in mind of course my first rule of music - there is always an exception to the rule (even this rule!). So to try and ratify the elements of composing technique; (off the top of my head in no particular order)

- Practical (instrument ranges, idioms, impossibilities etc)

- Architectural (form)

- Aesthetic (melody, harmony, texture)

- Consistency (of style/language within a work)

- Transference (of ideas into music)

- Developmental

- Adaptive (the ability to 'go with' a tangent possibly creating a successful piece different to that intended)

I think you've covered most bases there and am assuming you include things like counterpoint, motivic work, synthetic scales, etc. under the general title of 'Aesthetic'. I also assume that under 'Consistency' you would talk about defining parameters in a piece and how to set about finding those parameters in the first place.

For me the crucial difference in your list compared to a lot of other pedagogical writing that I've seen is the 'Adaptive' category. Keeping ones musical adventurism open within any self-defined parameters will always encourage inspirational moments and drag a piece away from the merely pure workmanship. A balance of both is highly desirable and an open mind can accomplish this in my view.

What do you think about adding notes on improvisation, perhaps in the 'Transference' category? I also often find it helpful to look at a blank ms and see it as a physical representation of the acoustic spectrum from top to bottom (orchestral score that is!). This encourages me to then think in multiple octaves, rather than any limitations imposed by my piano (and my playing.....:-). That and what John says.

some interesting points - I do want to hone down and if anything over-simplify - I was thinking practical to include things like counterpoint, and developmental relating to motivic work, though maybe a 'technical' category is needed. aesthetic I was thinking more of pure musical communication - how 'effective' it sounds. improvisation I would think of as adaptive - so you get a spark of an idea from improvising or your visual means and you adapt this into a format or form. improvisation itself I believe is often adaptive. (often too adaptive!) consistency - yes defining parameters and language of the work - e.g. don't suddenly start speaking in Urdu at the Waitrose checkout and expect to be understood (unless you are making a planned exception to the rule and that is what you piece is about - or you are planning to make unplanned exceptions - which is probably an exception in itself.) - phew!

Depending on how comprehensive you want to be and what age group you are aiming at, what do you think about some basics in Notation software and composing with your curriculum, or even a DAW? Depending on the generation, some might be more inclined to work within a computer, or are you thinking about encouraging a manuscript approach - or both!

Perhaps the way things are done isn't as important when compared to the how anyway.

I do believe "Technology" should probably also be a category. I see a gulf between those whose background is notation/theory (the pure paper folks whose pieces only come to life at the first rehearsal) and those whose background is production (the pure DAW folks for whom the exported WAV file *IS* the final performance). But, for much of the youngest generation of composers, fluency with software will be an assumed skill (so proper training really ought to be part of any curriculum).

Mike, it is for A level standard. I do heavily believe in a manuscript/keyboard approach at least to start. there is always the exception to the rule - a friend of mine composes on the keyboard scroll on logic, and imports to Sibelius via midi file. This chap is ex RCM, teaches and marks A level and has a M mus in composition.

John (and mike) - yes technology is a part of composing now, and certainly part of any curriculum - I do see it as an 'add on' skill though, and will cite George Crumb who's vastly experimental scores I believe are written with no technology involvement, and scores are produced by hand (I might stand to be corrected here???) (I don't think sib could recreate his scores??). Anyway - I believe technology should be a sub category to 'practical'.

I have a slightly different take on this topic. My school-age students range from age 6 to 18, those out of school range from 23 to 67 right now. The school-age students are all preparing (eventually) to be music majors in college and most will be composers as adults. The adult students are writing for commissions, performances and collaboration opportunities. All of them are actively involved with performers and other composers. None of them get other musical training other than what they learn in their performance lessons and with me. So I make sure they are all-round musicians as well as composers when they finally leave my studio. All composers should be all-round musicians in my book!!

Each of the categories of course has lower levels. So, under Direction and Arrival, we might learn how to create a successful climax, how to lead into it, how to continue after it, where it might be in relationship to the rest of the piece. Under Cohesion and Contrast, we might learn all the fun ways to look at a theme through a kaleidoscope - sequences, retrograde, diminution and so on, and then all the ways to contrast the theme without losing the sense of the piece.

If I had to list all the things we learn/discuss/experience over the course of one student's many years in this studio, I'd probably run out of time and paper to write it all down!!! Luckily I have each student for an average of 6 years, ranging from 3 years to 12 years. When you have the privilege to learn how a young person thinks and views the world, how she approaches her own unique creative process, what his musical and life goals are, you can delve into things that wouldn't normally go on the list!

We don't use any DAWs. Many of the universities and conservatories use notation software in the composition programs, and DAWs in other academic programs, like sound design or sound engineering. Some of the schools we've worked with still require one hand-written score! I tell my kids they should never depend on technology - when the power goes out, grab the staff paper and pencil. When stranded on a desert island, draw leger lines in the sand and use shells for notes. ;-) Seriously, though, too much dependency on technology can really affect creativity. I ask my kids to compose in their heads, designing and dreaming and hearing it first. That's the art. Writing it down is the craft.

I will study this closely Julie - I don't think it's that far from my original. perhaps you are more presenting a curriculum and I am presenting a mix of skill base and philosophy. I totally agree that we should not depend on technology - and absolutely so in an education setting. I am interested with the bit where we dream and visualize and, how accurately we can notate those dreams and visions into a form that effectively communicates our ideas. I would say I put that down to an adaptive skill.

Hey Robert - yes, I really think I have the best job in the whole world!!! I too think our ideas are much the same. I don't know how the UK schools are, but here in the US the schools are sadly lacking in any thorough grounding in music. I even know a lot of advanced pianists who can play really well but couldn't tell a I chord from a V7 chord if their life depended on it. The piano teachers tell me they don't have time to cover theory, history, analysis, etc etc and the schools don't even consider it. I have a feeling the European students have a better all-round education, including the arts. If it weren't so cold and rainy in England, I'd move! Especially for the gardens ...

I guess you figured out that my studio is private teaching, not associated with any school. I taught at the University for a while but it was too limiting. If you have any ideas of things that should be added to either of our lists, please let me know!

Hi - will try and come up with a definitive version from my perspective and post it. Actually UK music ed is getting worse for young kids in state sector - private schools and private tutors are the only way to go really for this group, and everything is dumbed down so much now-a-days with computers as a primary tool. I do try and incorporate as much history, harmony, form ect in my piano teaching - just pointing things out as we go. Maybe a lot of piano teachers haven't been taught like this and therefore don't pass it on. conservatories are a lot better now at catering for the all-round musician though, and there are some specialist music schools that you can get scholarships to attend like Purcell, Menuhin, and Wells. also the cathedral schools chorister programs are pretty special, though niche.

England is not so bad btw - the driest parts are over 3 times drier than the wettest. I did live in Arizona for a brief spell - carrying all that water is more of a pain than a jumper and raincoat if you want to get out!

Julie Harris said:

Hey Robert - yes, I really think I have the best job in the whole world!!! I too think our ideas are much the same. I don't know how the UK schools are, but here in the US the schools are sadly lacking in any thorough grounding in music. I even know a lot of advanced pianists who can play really well but couldn't tell a I chord from a V7 chord if their life depended on it. The piano teachers tell me they don't have time to cover theory, history, analysis, etc etc and the schools don't even consider it. I have a feeling the European students have a better all-round education, including the arts. If it weren't so cold and rainy in England, I'd move! Especially for the gardens ...

I guess you figured out that my studio is private teaching, not associated with any school. I taught at the University for a while but it was too limiting. If you have any ideas of things that should be added to either of our lists, please let me know!

"Seriously, though, too much dependency on technology can really affect creativity. I ask my kids to compose in their heads, designing and dreaming and hearing it first. That's the art. Writing it down is the craft."

Aint this the truth. Playback from DAW or Notation software can be completely misleading especially when it comes to orchestral balance and more importantly, if the composer only has a scant knowledge of scoring, there is a danger they will be misguided in what they are writing. I am specifically referring to serious art music here only.

My other issue with a technological approach is that at present, even the best samples (and particularly strings) cannot replicate all the techniques available in the real world and as a result, some will end up writing for what sounds good with what they have, rather than learning,then imagining and exploiting the possibilities. The mind is free to imagine what it wants and that kind of introspection is essential for more profound utterances in my view. Nice to see education is in good hands.

Mike, I would just round this out with my own experience, which is a bit different from most folks.

Growing up, I did not study (or have access to, really) an instrument, so I had little to no hands-on practical experience with real music-making. I'd always listened exclusively to classical music (despite having parents who were not into it whatsoever), so when I was 12 or 13 and decided I wanted to start writing music, I turned to books. I don't think my parents got me a keyboard until I was 15 or so and I didn't take any real music theory/composition classes until my last year of high school (although I did take some voice lessons earlier in high scool). By the time I got to college and wanted to major in music, I was at a disadvantage in many ways (though not all--as my knowledge of theory at the time was ahead of most of my colleagues).

Throughout all this, I was using notation software (although I did use paper, too), both for actual notation, but most importantly "realization" of what I was writing. Now, while one could argue the terrible MIDI may have hindered my ability to learn orchestration, I did supplement it with lots of other materials (I was always trying to write *well* for the instruments, regardless of whether or not that was reflected in the MIDI output).

However, if I had stuck to paper at a young age without any electronic "realization" (crude though it was) I might well have given up on the whole enterprise. I may be somewhat of a unique case, but I do think there are clear benefits of technology to the young composer, especially those without access to instruments or fellow student performers (though I do agree it needs to be supplemented significantly with other education).

I would add, too, that I think the lack of *decent* MIDI realizations actually causes many composers to focus too much sometimes on the abstract elements of composition, instead of the practical elements of real-life performance. You are always harping (rightfully) on lack of bowing in scores, but often that's because those marks really don't impact the sound of a basic MIDI performance. But there is actually VST technology today that approximates different bowings for you on your home computer! If folks were more adept at using that technology, they would probably understand a lot better why/how bowing impacts the final sound... And wouldn't having it played back to you in real-time be a better educational tool than reading books, watching bowing videos on YouTube and trying to imagine in your head how certain bowing might impact your music?

Of course, having access to real musicians is the absolute best way to learn, but it is just not available to everyone and I think technology, especially as it becomes cheaper, has the potential to fill that gap.

Mike Hewer said:

"Seriously, though, too much dependency on technology can really affect creativity. I ask my kids to compose in their heads, designing and dreaming and hearing it first. That's the art. Writing it down is the craft."

Aint this the truth. Playback from DAW or Notation software can be completely misleading especially when it comes to orchestral balance and more importantly, if the composer only has a scant knowledge of scoring, there is a danger they will be misguided in what they are writing. I am specifically referring to serious art music here only.

My other issue with a technological approach is that at present, even the best samples (and particularly strings) cannot replicate all the techniques available in the real world and as a result, some will end up writing for what sounds good with what they have, rather than learning,then imagining and exploiting the possibilities. The mind is free to imagine what it wants and that kind of introspection is essential for more profound utterances in my view. Nice to see education is in good hands.